| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1965 SLG 70 1965 SLD 70 1965 PLD 151 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. P-7 of 1964, decision dated: 26th November 1964. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, Peshawar, dated the 11th November 1963, in Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1963)
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., B. Z. KAIKAUS AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ
Zia-ud-Din Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Samad Khan Attorney for Appellant. Sher Bahadur Khan Additional Advocate General West Pakistan Peshawar (Shah Zaman Bahar Khan Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali Attorney for the S
Criminal Appeal No. P-7 of 1964, decision dated: 26th November 1964. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, Peshawar, dated the 11th November 1963, in Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1963)
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., B. Z. KAIKAUS AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ
Zia-ud-Din Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Samad Khan Attorney for Appellant. Sher Bahadur Khan Additional Advocate General West Pakistan Peshawar (Shah Zaman Bahar Khan Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali Attorney for the S
ABDUL RAZIK
VS
THE STATE
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 34
(a) Witness---Eye-witnesses describing themselves as being at much shorter distances from the spot than the actual distance as deposed to by Police witness-Witnesses rightly disbelieved.At a trial for murder, three persons, Z, S and A were produced to give direct evidence. Z admitted that his attention was attracted by the sound of the gunshots, while he was inside his house. It was brought out in the statement of the Thanedar that Z's house was 1J to 2 furlongs from the spot, but Z tried to make out that it was only half a furlong, that is about 100 yards away. The Courts below accordingly refused to accept him as an eye-witness. S said that his house was only 35 paces from the spot, but in fact the distance was about 170 yards. A's house was much closer, but he brought himself even nearer to the spot by saying that he was going out to the fields (the scene of murder) to ease himself. The evidence of these two witnesses was also disbelieved in the Courts below and the Supreme Court was of the opinion that this was quite obviously for good reasons. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58-Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court-Granted to consider whether "in circumstances of case dying declarations could be regarded as a safe basis for conviction" when such statements had been "disbelieved" in respect of a co-accused. (c) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 32 - Dying declaration Credibility-Believing or disbelieving witness is question merely of "ordinary human "-Aids to formation of such not available in case of dying declarations-To accept such statement without considering "surrounding circumstances", "totally inconsistent with safe dispensation of justice"-Accepting such statement on considerations of opinions expressed in precedent cases regarding similar declarations, accompanied by words indicating reliance on "some principle of law", held, to be "no less dangerous"-"Careful scrutiny, applied to all physical circumstances" appearing from evidence, only way of arriving at conclusion that statement is "worthy of belief". (d) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 32-Dying declaration Identification of accused-Visibility-Two statements of deceased examined with reference…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492